Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sounds like you are losing the game if you are getting overwhelmed and pushed off objectives. Or if you can't remove them. The issue with scoring in the command phase is clear...they have even made a rule to address it it is just incomplete. It's okay for the player going first to have objective advnatage the whole game except for turn 5...why? Why turn 5? Why not turn 2 or 3? It is so random. Realistically you are lucky to have units left on turn 5. Plus in tournaments you are lucky to even make t to turn 5. So IMO this is a real disconnect from the reality of the game. If anyone should have the objective advantage it should be the player going second. Not the player who gets to strike first.

No, I'm saying you have no input on what your opponent does. It doesn't matter if you push them off. They still scored.

Literally the only thing needed to win with your scenario is have a ton of models and just keep the numerical advantage.

So at present it is like this - results in a score of 1 to 1:


And you propose this - results in a score of 4 to 4:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've won a lot games going second. It is not preferable but there are some major advantage to it. Mainly - You get to react and typically the most valued targets are out in the open because they were trying to hurt you.

If you are a durable army like crons...Going second is almost preferable because you will almost always win battles of attrition and you aren't forced to overextend to alpha when you go second. So the Data collected here is also not a surprise to me.

I think the biggest issue with the game is too few turns. going back to 6 or 7 turns would fix a lot of these issues. Objectives on the other hand should all be scored at the end of the game turn - not the beginning of each player turn. That is just common sense.

Totally the opposite, Necrons feast on going first all the fething way

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Seems like the first decent metawatch, and that's because they have someone from Goonhammer on to have a proper chat.

Not sure what to make of the Craftworlds list, I don't think Ulthwe Dire Avengers are good enough to run that many, but it's an army that looks like it would play the objective game well.

Yeah, at 11pm I am feeling them but not THAT much. They still die like a stiff breeze compared to MEQ troops, and pretty much anyone from guardsmen to tacticals can have a favorable exchange with them pointswise just by nature of their low defense and not particularly impressive damage.

Eh it could be comparable to a single Intercessor in terms of range output. 1-2 S4 AP-1 shots at 30" OR S4 3 shots at 24" is pretty comparable to 4 S4 shots at 18" with a proc ability. Single Marine has more durability obviously.

I am not sure I am following you entirely.

The point I am making here is that the only way to score an objective right now is to move onto it and survive a turn.

For the player going first it is easy. Move onto objective (it is unoccupied) and hold it.

The player going second has a serious gap to fill.
They have to fight you off the objective and survive a turn while likely being diminished and if they get shot off the objective. That is a 1-0 win for the player going first. The points are just gifted to them. (this is assuming a turn 2 takage of the objective - I understand objectives aren't scored turn 1)

In my scenerio the player going second is rewarded for taking that objective and they should be. It can obviously get more complicated but the general jist is the same. The player that gets on the objectives first has a massive primary scoring advantage. Scoring at the end of the game turn more or less fixes it.

Adding more turns fixes the problem you are speaking off. With overloading the board with chaf. Chaff takes up board but really doesn't live that long. So overloading on chaff you are gonna have no models left after 5 turns and your opponent gets 2 turns of max objectives in a 6-7 turn game...

 Xenomancers wrote:
I am not sure I am following you entirely.

The point I am making here is that the only way to score an objective right now is to move onto it and survive a turn.

For the player going first it is easy. Move onto objective (it is unoccupied) and hold it.

The player going second has a serious gap to fill.
They have to fight you off the objective and survive a turn while likely being diminished and if they get shot off the objective. That is a 1-0 win for the player going first. The points are just gifted to them. (this is assuming a turn 2 takage of the objective - I understand objectives aren't scored turn 1)

In my scenerio the player going second is rewarded for taking that objective and they should be. It can obviously get more complicated but the general jist is the same. The player that gets on the objectives first has a massive primary scoring advantage. Scoring at the end of the game turn more or less fixes it.

Adding more turns fixes the problem you are speaking off. With overloading the board with chaf. Chaff takes up board but really doesn't live that long. So overloading on chaff you are gonna have no models left after 5 turns and your opponent gets 2 turns of max objectives in a 6-7 turn game...

Doesn't work like that for Necron warriors. 140 of them plus a couple technos, a couple wardens, and a phaeron would struggle to lose. Or imagine for a moment facing an army with a lot of infiltrate who goes first - they'd score so much it wouldn't be able to be overcome.

First player gets advantage turn 1, but still has to contend with player 2's input. Player 2 has to wait for turn 5, but then might have less influence from Player 1 depending on what is left. Adding turns don't solve much especially if people experience being tabled at turn 4/5.

When it comes to the timing of scoring objectives, I think the idea below is interesting to consider:

Each control point "builds up" scoring points as follows:

After 1 turn = 1 point
After 2 turns = 3 points
After 3 turns = 6 points
After 4 turns = 10 points
After 5 turns = 15 points (see the pattern)

In order to score point, a unit has to spend an ACTION when in control of the point (most scoring models within 3" or whatever) in order gain the points. After points are scored, control point "resets" and is worth 1 point again on the next turn.

Obviously, holding a point and scoring in the final turn is going to net the most points, but there is now a range of strategies in play. Maybe you're army is more suited to pushing on control points in the mid-game, netting 6-points on turn 3, but no plans to hold it after. You're opponent taking it back would only get 4 points if they cached out on turn 5 (two turns later).

It seems like it could create a lot more dynamics and tough choices. I also think requiring units to take an ACTION to control the point would be a way to counteract the lethality of the game to a degree.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I am not sure I am following you entirely.

The point I am making here is that the only way to score an objective right now is to move onto it and survive a turn.

For the player going first it is easy. Move onto objective (it is unoccupied) and hold it.

The player going second has a serious gap to fill.
They have to fight you off the objective and survive a turn while likely being diminished and if they get shot off the objective. That is a 1-0 win for the player going first. The points are just gifted to them. (this is assuming a turn 2 takage of the objective - I understand objectives aren't scored turn 1)

In my scenerio the player going second is rewarded for taking that objective and they should be. It can obviously get more complicated but the general jist is the same. The player that gets on the objectives first has a massive primary scoring advantage. Scoring at the end of the game turn more or less fixes it.

Adding more turns fixes the problem you are speaking off. With overloading the board with chaf. Chaff takes up board but really doesn't live that long. So overloading on chaff you are gonna have no models left after 5 turns and your opponent gets 2 turns of max objectives in a 6-7 turn game...

Doesn't work like that for Necron warriors. 140 of them plus a couple technos, a couple wardens, and a phaeron would struggle to lose. Or imagine for a moment facing an army with a lot of infiltrate who goes first - they'd score so much it wouldn't be able to be overcome.

First player gets advantage turn 1, but still has to contend with player 2's input. Player 2 has to wait for turn 5, but then might have less influence from Player 1 depending on what is left. Adding turns don't solve much especially if people experience being tabled at turn 4/5.

Realistically - necron horde struggles to lose in general. They are some of the best units in the whole of 40k. Not to mention VOD is just amazing.

There is not much difference between the two methods the majority of the time. If you are winning and not being removed you are scoring and they aren't. It is literally just fiddling with when the reward for holding objectives is distributed. Which should be after both players have had an equal opportunity to act. It is undeniable that is the only way to do it fairly.

 Mezmorki wrote:
When it comes to the timing of scoring objectives, I think the idea below is interesting to consider:

Each control point "builds up" scoring points as follows:

After 1 turn = 1 point
After 2 turns = 3 points
After 3 turns = 6 points
After 4 turns = 10 points
After 5 turns = 15 points (see the pattern)

In order to score point, a unit has to spend an ACTION when in control of the point (most scoring models within 3" or whatever) in order gain the points. After points are scored, control point "resets" and is worth 1 point again on the next turn.

Obviously, holding a point and scoring in the final turn is going to net the most points, but there is now a range of strategies in play. Maybe you're army is more suited to pushing on control points in the mid-game, netting 6-points on turn 3, but no plans to hold it after. You're opponent taking it back would only get 4 points if they cached out on turn 5 (two turns later).

It seems like it could create a lot more dynamics and tough choices. I also think requiring units to take an ACTION to control the point would be a way to counteract the lethality of the game to a degree.

I'm definitely in favor of objectives becoming more important over the course of the game. Well, I'm in favor of some missions having 'pure' progressive scoring like we have now, some being hold-at-the-end, and some being like what you describe, but obviously what you describe doesn't yet exist.

I'd be a little gentler on the curve though. Maybe just a straight points = turn * 3. So:
Turn 1- 3pts
Turn 2- 6pts
Turn 3- 9pts
Turn 4- 12pts
Turn 5- 15pts

Otherwise in your proposal I think turns 1 and 2 become largely irrelevant, especially if you have to expend an action to score anything, and turns 4-5 decide the game. I'm also not sure about universally requiring actions to score points- it seems to me like it would lead to an MSU-dominant meta where you need as many units as possible to minimize the loss you take from dedicating units to scoring, and would further divide armies into 'scores points but doesn't kill' and 'kills but doesn't score points', neither of which produce (IMO) a satisfying game experience.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the biggest issue with the game is too few turns. going back to 6 or 7 turns would fix a lot of these issues.

I think 5 is appropriate. Games finish on time and people aren't sitting on their hands.

Objectives on the other hand should all be scored at the end of the game turn - not the beginning of each player turn. That is just common sense.

That just means the opponent has no input. If I have fast units that can overwhelm and score you can do nothing about it.

Sounds like you are losing the game if you are getting overwhelmed and pushed off objectives. Or if you can't remove them. The issue with scoring in the command phase is clear...they have even made a rule to address it it is just incomplete. It's okay for the player going first to have objective advnatage the whole game except for turn 5...why? Why turn 5? Why not turn 2 or 3? It is so random. Realistically you are lucky to have units left on turn 5. Plus in tournaments you are lucky to even make t to turn 5. So IMO this is a real disconnect from the reality of the game. If anyone should have the objective advantage it should be the player going second. Not the player who gets to strike first.

There are very specific reasons for making the end of round scoring for the 2nd player at the end of turn 5. That you ask why and say it's random tells me you really don't understand the actual problem to begin with. All of this is pointed out by multiple articles. I suggest you take the time to really read and digest the Metawatch article, and then go find the relevant Goonhammer articles and read them. I can't really state it better than they do, so I won't.

I like these ideas. The action thing is a good idea, but like CB said - there would be haves and have nots (see knights) for armies capable of having chaff for scoring and you'd have to carve out exceptions to make it work well. I can't see a downside to escalating points at the moment.

One thought - would it encourage overly cagey play where people put most of their army into deepstrike?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
One thought - would it encourage overly cagey play where people put most of their army into deepstrike?

Well, for one thing, you are required to bring in your DSing units on either the second or third battle round, no holding for later. For another, keeping half your army in DS gives your opponent the opportunity to not only score objectives early, but also to bully the heck out of the half you did start on the table.

I mean, even when we had objectives only scored at the end of the game, putting half your army in DS and holding them until late-game wasn't really a thing. You have to put something down on the board to start with and your opponent is going to shoot it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Seems like the first decent metawatch, and that's because they have someone from Goonhammer on to have a proper chat.

Not sure what to make of the Craftworlds list, I don't think Ulthwe Dire Avengers are good enough to run that many, but it's an army that looks like it would play the objective game well.

Yeah, at 11pm I am feeling them but not THAT much. They still die like a stiff breeze compared to MEQ troops, and pretty much anyone from guardsmen to tacticals can have a favorable exchange with them pointswise just by nature of their low defense and not particularly impressive damage.

Eh it could be comparable to a single Intercessor in terms of range output. 1-2 S4 AP-1 shots at 30" OR S4 3 shots at 24" is pretty comparable to 4 S4 shots at 18" with a proc ability. Single Marine has more durability obviously.

That's an interesting point... if only you could buy 2 DA models for the same cost as an intercessor and yeah, pile on all the bennies and Marines win out easy peasy. But you make a decent point here, 11ppm helps. I'm still with Scotsman though, that gak still doesn't do enough.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyranid Horde wrote:
Seems like the first decent metawatch, and that's because they have someone from Goonhammer on to have a proper chat.

Not sure what to make of the Craftworlds list, I don't think Ulthwe Dire Avengers are good enough to run that many, but it's an army that looks like it would play the objective game well.

Yeah, at 11pm I am feeling them but not THAT much. They still die like a stiff breeze compared to MEQ troops, and pretty much anyone from guardsmen to tacticals can have a favorable exchange with them pointswise just by nature of their low defense and not particularly impressive damage.

Eh it could be comparable to a single Intercessor in terms of range output. 1-2 S4 AP-1 shots at 30" OR S4 3 shots at 24" is pretty comparable to 4 S4 shots at 18" with a proc ability. Single Marine has more durability obviously.

That's an interesting point... if only you could buy 2 DA models for the same cost as an intercessor and yeah, pile on all the bennies and Marines win out easy peasy. But you make a decent point here, 11ppm helps. I'm still with Scotsman though, that gak still doesn't do enough.

I mean it's 22 to 20, so it isn't like that's far off like you're making it.

It's easy to underestimate those big squads of avengers. With avenging strike they hit on 2's, wound intercessors on 3's and pop the -3 ap on 5+ to wound rolls.
+1 to hit and wound is a very strong ability and enables humble troops to threaten every thing on the table.

So the thing that people were saying will be a problem, since day 1 did end up to be a problem in the end. And it took less then 12 months to fix, and we got a meta article out of it. Seems very good to me.

People were saying day 1 that Death Guard will be very good and Daemons will be trash as well.

An approach based on actual games happening beats out theoretical predictions.

Yeah, let's remember that according to experts and playtesters, 9th edition was an ultra shooty edition and melee was screwed.

Considering the top army is build around heavy weapon armed transports, and grunts running around with anti tank weapons as basic squad weapon, it is kind of a hard to say that shoting is bad in 9th. The fact that harlis can do melee on top of shoting is just a bonus.

Karol wrote:
Considering the top army is build around heavy weapon armed transports, and grunts running around with anti tank weapons as basic squad weapon, it is kind of a hard to say that shoting is bad in 9th. The fact that harlis can do melee on top of shoting is just a bonus.

You have been looking at some strange top armies.

Current trend is 90% melee 10% shooting.

Top army is still harlis, marine still seem to be run with a heavy focus on shoting too.

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
Considering the top army is build around heavy weapon armed transports, and grunts running around with anti tank weapons as basic squad weapon, it is kind of a hard to say that shoting is bad in 9th. The fact that harlis can do melee on top of shoting is just a bonus.

You have been looking at some strange top armies.

Current trend is 90% melee 10% shooting.

90% melee and 10% sounds like an exaggeration. Most of the top armies have very solid shooting, Harlequins and SM in particular. Orks have a competitive build that is based on tons of buggies which are mostly shooting oriented. 9 buggies (less than 1000 points) come with 120-150 dice rolled in the shooting phase.

And most of the melee based armies, aren't actually heavy on melee specialists. They rely on cheap bodies for staying power, see ork greentides. A typical ork competitive ork greentide with 90 boyz isn't really a melee army, and it's one of the most melee oriented army achetypes I can think of. Definitely not 90-10 in favor of melee.

Typically I'd say 50/50 is the real trend for the competitive top lists.

Karol wrote:
So the thing that people were saying will be a problem, since day 1 did end up to be a problem in the end. And it took less then 12 months to fix, and we got a meta article out of it. Seems very good to me.

Maybe it shouldn't have been a problem to begin with...

 Blackie wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
Considering the top army is build around heavy weapon armed transports, and grunts running around with anti tank weapons as basic squad weapon, it is kind of a hard to say that shoting is bad in 9th. The fact that harlis can do melee on top of shoting is just a bonus.

You have been looking at some strange top armies.

Current trend is 90% melee 10% shooting.

90% melee and 10% sounds like an exaggeration. Most of the top armies have very solid shooting, Harlequins and SM in particular. Orks have a competitive build that is based on tons of buggies which are mostly shooting oriented. 9 buggies (less than 1000 points) come with 120-150 dice rolled in the shooting phase.

And most of the melee based armies, aren't actually heavy on melee specialists. They rely on cheap bodies for staying power, see ork greentides. A typical ork competitive ork greentide with 90 boyz isn't really a melee army, and it's one of the most melee oriented army achetypes I can think of. Definitely not 90-10 in favor of melee.

Typically I'd say 50/50 is the real trend for the competitive top lists.

The absolute strongest faction right now is Demons, which have either no shooting, or a single shooting unit.
Then you have black templars and harleys, which have very limited shooting compared to melee (I consider pistols melee).
Nids current build is based on triple Dima/Hierodule.
Blood Angels have usually only Inceptors as ranged.

The only factions right now that keep shooting afloat are necrons, admech and sisters, and out of those only admech are really shooting lists, the other ones are usually an hybrid.

90/10 is probably too much, but melee right now is clearly more relevant than shooting, which is enough to state that initial ideas about how 9th edition would play were very very wrong.

Daemons do have shooting, and shooting units. Dunno if they are being used in those top lists but it is a thing.

Personally I have always felt that first turn has the greatest advantage and this is because of 2 common tactics - infiltrating and first turn charges.

Fact is there is no maelstrom missions where you need to adapt. You have objectives and can define secondaries, but for the most part it’s about board control. If you get your outriders into assault turn 1, you limit your opponents movement to the objective and limit their ability to deal with them (through your shooting). You can block with infiltrators just to rub it in.

By the end of the game, when your opponent can grab some objectives, your first turn alpha and ongoing attrition should have limited the number of units they have to deal with it.

In short, uphill struggle for the turn 2 side.

Speaking from a BA perspective, while I never wanted to go second, it never was terribad for me. Enemy units coming towards objectives in the middle more often than not guaranteed a 1st turn charge.
If you can hide fast/flying units behind some terrain to weather the storm of the shooting phase, what you wanted to do with them anyway just becomes easier.

Now of course, not every faction got viable units that fit the description.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the biggest issue with the game is too few turns. going back to 6 or 7 turns would fix a lot of these issues.

I think 5 is appropriate. Games finish on time and people aren't sitting on their hands.

My first reaction is the knee-jerk "I laugh at the five turn limit, most games are over except for the mopping up by turn two" but the 9th ed games I've played with the new mission packs mostly haven't gone that way.

Maybe it shouldn't have been a problem to begin with...

Yeah - this is one of the things in 9th where I can't figure out where their heads were. You can see immediately, just by reading the rules that player 2 is likely going to have a rough time of it, and playing the game just confirms it. Not sure what the resistance was to this. Both online and from people like Mike Brant himself. It was bizarrely controversial at one point to even suggest that their might be a 1st turn advantage ...

Glad they fixed it, not sure why it was a issue in the first place. Looking forward to seeing how the fix works out!

My first reaction is the knee-jerk "I laugh at the five turn limit, most games are over except for the mopping up by turn two" but the 9th ed games I've played with the new mission packs mostly haven't gone that way.

You're lucky. I've seen/been IN far too many games that, even if they weren't literally over by the end of 3 or the beginning of 4, were all but impossible for one player to win. Most if the games in fact.

Tycho wrote:
Yeah - this is one of the things in 9th where I can't figure out where their heads were. You can see immediately, just by reading the rules that player 2 is likely going to have a rough time of it, and playing the game just confirms it. Not sure what the resistance was to this. Both online and from people like Mike Brant himself. It was bizarrely controversial at one point to even suggest that their might be a 1st turn advantage ...

GW needs to admit they were lying when they said that.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've won a lot games going second. It is not preferable but there are some major advantage to it. Mainly - You get to react and typically the most valued targets are out in the open because they were trying to hurt you.

If you are a durable army like crons...Going second is almost preferable because you will almost always win battles of attrition and you aren't forced to overextend to alpha when you go second. So the Data collected here is also not a surprise to me.

I think the biggest issue with the game is too few turns. going back to 6 or 7 turns would fix a lot of these issues. Objectives on the other hand should all be scored at the end of the game turn - not the beginning of each player turn. That is just common sense.

Totally the opposite, Necrons feast on going first all the fething way

If you look at the data collected. Crons are winning 58% going first and 52% going second. Obvious going first has an advantage but crons still win more than they lose going second.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:
Considering the top army is build around heavy weapon armed transports, and grunts running around with anti tank weapons as basic squad weapon, it is kind of a hard to say that shoting is bad in 9th. The fact that harlis can do melee on top of shoting is just a bonus.

You have been looking at some strange top armies.

Current trend is 90% melee 10% shooting.

90% melee and 10% sounds like an exaggeration. Most of the top armies have very solid shooting, Harlequins and SM in particular. Orks have a competitive build that is based on tons of buggies which are mostly shooting oriented. 9 buggies (less than 1000 points) come with 120-150 dice rolled in the shooting phase.

And most of the melee based armies, aren't actually heavy on melee specialists. They rely on cheap bodies for staying power, see ork greentides. A typical ork competitive ork greentide with 90 boyz isn't really a melee army, and it's one of the most melee oriented army achetypes I can think of. Definitely not 90-10 in favor of melee.

Typically I'd say 50/50 is the real trend for the competitive top lists.

The absolute strongest faction right now is Demons, which have either no shooting, or a single shooting unit.
Then you have black templars and harleys, which have very limited shooting compared to melee (I consider pistols melee).
Nids current build is based on triple Dima/Hierodule.
Blood Angels have usually only Inceptors as ranged.

The only factions right now that keep shooting afloat are necrons, admech and sisters, and out of those only admech are really shooting lists, the other ones are usually an hybrid.

90/10 is probably too much, but melee right now is clearly more relevant than shooting, which is enough to state that initial ideas about how 9th edition would play were very very wrong.

If you take a look at the "melee" list that are doing well. They are hyper durable units that typical ignore intervening terrain and have threat ranges similar to most shooting weapons. It's really hyper mobility that is dominating.